edit_channel

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool modifies an existing channel, implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence in French that directly states the action. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and has zero wasted words, making it appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context like behavioral details, usage guidelines, and output expectations. The high schema coverage helps, but the description doesn't compensate for the missing structured data, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (channelId, name, categoryId, reason). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how parameters interact or constraints on values. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Modifie un canal existant' (Modifies an existing channel) clearly states the verb (modifies) and resource (channel), but it's vague about what aspects can be modified. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'create_channel' or 'delete_channel' but doesn't differentiate from similar tools like 'edit_message' or 'edit_role' beyond the resource name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing channel ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'set_channel_permissions' or 'update_embed' that might overlap in functionality. Usage is implied only by the name and basic action.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.